Mailing-List: contact users-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@openoffice.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mhenriday@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50B66AC2.7090404@laposte.net>
References: <E6E091EDD07F4AAE907590421D384CB8@PC796851285032>
 <CAP-ksojfLcn1zrLPG+dGZmLUh+jM8=rHhevqiV3auZvMi5u4tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADo7T4fX7dNzRuZ8m75xfXf7qJctpjQ+ZaG6rBYp-VKe40jYVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAIRVNEXSMTP241DXeB0033675a@CAIRVNEXSMTP24.uswin.ad.vzwcorp.com>
 <20121128183641.270BF816018@nike.apache.org>
 <CAM9zRCpTO-cu+6e5PFL3PRrbC1PdcALoY7fWiJmqr0WHi=s0jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <50B66AC2.7090404@laposte.net>
From: M Henri Day <mhenriday@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:07:54 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAM9zRCr+aO1AbZUTiNFSq42YQbCkLe0Pr55kJMoqfb6bCvjjOg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Open Office in Swedish
To: users@openoffice.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66f73d3cbd0704cf93bb68

--047d7b66f73d3cbd0704cf93bb68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2012/11/28 Hagar Delest <hagar.delest@laposte.net>

> Le 28/11/2012 19:43, M Henri Day a =C3=A9crit :
>
>> Agree - but the responsibility for the forking should be placed squarely
>> where it lies - on Oracle. Moreover, the forked paths would have
>> automatically rejoined had Oracle, when it decided to dump OOo, chosen t=
o
>> assign it to the Document Foundation, which was already up and running a=
nd
>> which requested that this be done. Instead, the firm decided to assign a=
ll
>> the rights to Apache, in the knowledge that doing so would perpetuate th=
e
>> fork. Thank you, Mr Ellison....
>>
>
> But you're forgetting the license difference!
> Apache license has been chosen because it allows a more permissive reuse
> of the code. Of course I understand the fears that it can draw but it can
> also attract big players. Even if some code is note given back to the
> community, they know that if they want to benefit from the support of the
> community, the community need to know about the new code those big player=
s
> are injecting too.
> So let them customize for their own need and help the community with code
> that is not strategical for them, with manpower, with ODF support, ...
>
> BTW, Isn't LO investigating a license change (to Al v2, like AOO)? What
> would happen to the already submitted code that is based on OOo code and
> not AOO? The mere thinking about switching is a proof that in the end, th=
e
> Apache license may be the best way to attract resources.
>
> Hagar


Hagar, are the differences between the Apache License version 2 and the GNU
Lesser General Public License version 3 really so great that they preclude
a recombination of the forked paths ? In my view, it should be possible to
overcome the differences, but the longer things go on in the present
manner, the greater the risk that both sides will become more and more
entrenched in their present positions. In any event, my suggestion to the
OP was based upon her evident desire to obtain an updated Swedish-language
version of the suite, one of which is offered by LibreOffice, but alas, not
(yet ?) by Apache OpenOffice....

Henri

--047d7b66f73d3cbd0704cf93bb68--